Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The law of attraction is the name given to the maxim "like attracts like" which in New Thought philosophy is used to sum up the idea that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts a person brings positive or negative experiences into their life.[1][2] This belief is based upon the idea that people and their thoughts are both made from "pure energy", and the belief that like energy attracts like energy Law of Attraction

Quickly, what came to view was the dung beetle and how elephant shit is rolled into a ball, while this ball becomes the food for a new generation. Not the best analogy, but one might get the abstraction of a point in a circle.

The fish is "soul food." The water the unconscious, all possible facets
of the sensorium. The hook and worm, aspects of the "focus held" while
you are fishing.

While one is out fishing.....you drop your line into the water......you use bait to attract the fish......and wait for a bite? Complexity, of getting fish from a large body of water.

So while analogies, these represent an action we are quite amenable too, given environment and the bait as an attractive, can bring things to a point.

I too read Napoleon Hill many years ago, and this did form part of my developing perspective about what and how I think now. Positive thoughts versus negative ones which serve as a precursor to environmental change. This can be psychological in affect, as to relationships with people and what is predominant in mind. How we say things to our selves and how things become bleak in our outlook, from our constant underlying breath and from what we can say to ourselves and how we think.

Ideas drawn from vast reservoir of information has to have an attractor, so you set the stage? Thoughts? Incubation? AHA!

Monday, February 16, 2015

Aristotle laid out the principles of his logic in his writing Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, in Latin De Interpretatione, in English On Exposition. It is a graphical representation of the relations between propositions that guarantee their truth. If philosophers and scientists would internalise the logical rules in Aristotle's square of opposition, a lot of misunderstandings would be prevented. SEE: The Square of Opposition as a Whiteboard animation

Thursday, May 08, 2014

You all have to know the hammer analogy was made aware to me about a week before this debate took place. Also, a YouTube label given to this demonstration was posted under "gaming" so I find that kind of funny given the seriousness of this debate.

I pushed Number 1. But, you also know my bias right so I did not think providing this image would hurt in an way given that you already have some insight into my perspective? My opinion at Sean's Blog as well pertaining to this subject.

So as I am going through the debate I thought it necessary to keep a running tab for my self so as to see from what position one is speaking. So now that I know Sean is speaking from a Naturalist point of view. I will continue.

A metaphysics that goes beyond the commitments of science is simply unsupported by the best available evidence.[27]

—Lynne Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of
science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It
is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe
to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence
the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the
naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also
to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical
method.

Okay I am at 36:58 of the video so I have had the opportunity to listen to the four speakers. I have to say oh my gosh, there is a lot here to consider, and a lot I have already considered. So I need to respond to that first part of the video.

As life calls us to do our things in the day to day, I also have a schedule today, so this posting will be broken up in terms of my response as to the first part of the video. Please be patient. It also gives me time to think about what has been said.

I want to open with the quote Sean responded too, of Eben Alexanders of Einstein. So give me time to drawn this comment out of Eben's book.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

I am still ay 36:58 so I needed to finish what what I have surmised in that first part so I can go on with the video. Below is something that I had written to my Aunt, so hope she is okay with me repeating it here. You will see that entry below. It basically sums up the first part of the debate for me.

As I was finishing listening to Steven Novella speak, the quote of Einstein, now gotten from Eben's book, Proof of Heaven under Prologue, and response given by Sean Carroll was a matter of fact to the whole first part to me as it was for Sean to Eben's Alexanders use of the quote.

Something also interesting to me was Sean's admittance of wanting to believe (that death is not final) but at this point not being able too.That said a lot to me, and in the aspect of being a scientist, I believe what he is saying.:) So I will continue on with the rest of the video now.

***

In a note to my Aunt.

Hi Aunt Celine,

I am a bit of a science buff when it comes to what is currently happening in science. I too had been reading about the NDE for quite a long time as well. Moody agrees with you, about science not quite ready. Since I have studied other aspects of consciousness research, it is my hope that one day we will understand this debate, as a recognition of who we all are as spiritual beings, in a physical body.

What Moody proposes is the beginning of a true dialogue based on logic and reason, and these stem from philosophy. So it is important to see the discussion in terms of where this dialogue can truly begin. Moody mentions pseudoscience and from that, his journey through philosophy. He is trying to set up a credible debate.

I read Eben Alexander's book as well so I knew where he was coming from, as well I have been following Sean Carroll's science for sometime now. The only one that was sort of new to me was that Steve Novella, and as a neuroscientist, I am open to what he has to say.
I must say then I am also a bit of philosopher that has had me venturing through aspect and developments about the Mind/ body debate that is going on, and that is where the science is saying that it is based on materialism. On my own, I have studied Plato and other philosophers.

In order to accept materialism one has to believe, that consciousness is derived from the brain, while the other perspective is that the brain in my view, is what consciousness uses while the body is alive, but that consciousness can exist, once our body dies. That understanding is in contradiction to what science saids today, but I am saying to science, that they indeed do not have all the facts to make this conclusion even though they can simulate experience from manipulating the physical aspects of the body to produce the near death experience.

Religion has not helped me and I must say, that my upbringing within the Catholic Church has left much for me say, about its patriarchal construct, and how it falls short of providing support for what spiritual means to me. I hope you are not offended.

I do believe in a higher power, and I do believe that Heaven is capable in all of us now. In my education, I might of called it Symmetry, in the very beginning, and science has something to say about that. While I have a real study in reductionism, the work that has been going on, I believe eventually it will lead to an understanding within science, but it has to be developed, and in my view Moody's philosophical standpoint, is where we will start.

***

So I finished the rest of the video last night. There were somethings that were quite memorable to me that stood out.I wanted to quickly move to the end of the debate where each had an opportunity as they did in the beginning to give their last assessment as to why Death is Final, or not.

I was more focused on Sean's response and reiteration of respect for people and their beliefs. This was important to me. When Moody spoke of the work that he had been doing for the last forty years with regard to NDEs and the listening to people about these experiences, these were genuine stories of, "Death was not Final" for Moody. I was encouraged by the votes last night, not for which side supposedly won, but by the uncertainty(final 12%) as to the question of what remains as a definitive, as to Death is Final. These shows to me that people in the end still do not know, and that, they could not be decisive. This to me, leaves room for work to be done.

I also liked Sean Carroll's response too, the responsibility of acceptance as to how one may look at life given the perspective of responsibility he has having accepted his position on Death is Final. Of course he might used, when he was a child, as one might use as Moody did, as was his thrust to understand astronomy.

I believe this to be sincere, and such a question about death that would come to all in the child's mind, a determiner of what the future would bring for him as he sat on that panel. Not so much as a Skeptic full blooded, so as to be glib with the response of, as if Steve Novella was the amazing Randi and waited for the bet that has not been collected. :) But to remain open, as the undecided results spoke toward, as if, more information would be needed to make a final definitive statement.

So anyway, another moment stood out in regard to Sean Carroll's response to a woman about where the energy goes once we die. His analogy of a flame going out was like the hammer statement used above, as used in the repertoire of such a question about energy and death. What I liked about the response, was as to where it put the woman in mind. If you have ever come to the point of a logical constructive immobilizing one's position, as it was on the face this woman wore, as to where the woman could go next. That final deductive state is an important one to me.

I have much more to say about reductionism and how that research is important to me as if the table would be permanent as the atom that make it up, would be a table ad infinitive. So as sure as, matter in all it's constitutions have been described, as to say I am pointing right a it?:) We are not objects like the table. The analogy of the narrative is always important as it is spoken, and as subjective and alone as it might seem there is the greater picture of the story of the NDEr.

I must say too, that the idea of reductionism as much as materialism, causes flinches in those who speak about spiritual things, would make one from that side speak about what is not reducible? Since energy is an important topic and how we use configuration space to surmise it's existence, it becomes a classification of matter. I would assume there is much still to be ascertained. I read the blogs of other scientists who are at the front with questions phenomenologically expressed that want to see where the science goes next. Just as we have been taken t the limits of where the identification of the Higg's operates and what that energy range is.

Friday, February 07, 2014

Unus mundus, Latin for "one world", is the concept of an underlying unified reality from which everything emerges and to which everything returns.The idea was popularized in the 20th century by the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, though the term can be traced back to scholastics such as Duns Scotus[1] and was taken up again in the 16th century by Gerhard Dorn, a student of the famous alchemist Paracelsus.

The striving for me was to dig deeper into our very natures. It always the quest to understand the patterns that reside in us. The very idea for me was that in this quest to unify, the objective world(matter) with the world that resides in a center place. To me that place was the source from which all things manifest.

Jung, in conjunction with the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, explored the possibility that his concepts of the archetype and synchronicity might be related to the unus mundus - the archetype being an expression of unus mundus; synchronicity, or "meaningful coincidence", being made possible by the fact that both the observer and connected phenomenon ultimately stem from the same source, the unus mundus.[2]

So while there was this objective striving to see how such formations emerged as materiality of such expression, was a final construct that existed in that external world. For me this was something no one could quite explain to me, yet, as I moved forward I began to find such correlates as to others who tried to map that expression.

It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing Jung's concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler.
Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are
themselves the product of an objective order which transcends both the
human mind and the external world.[2]

This as the idea emerged, I looked for what emergence might mean, as an example of a beginning, and the subsequent model that may emerge from that source. This then became know as the "arche," and the tendency to form"(type)" as a movement forward in the solidifying of that expression. This was a matter bound expression, fully recognizing the need for a spiritual recognition of this opposition as a struggle in with consciousness to seek balance with materiality. Polarity, as the world of the real.

One of Duchamp's close friends Man Ray
(1890–1976) was also one of Duchamp's collaborators. His photograph
'Dust Breeding' (Duchamp's Large Glass with Dust Notes) from 1920 is a
document of The Large Glass after it had collected a year's worth of
dust while Duchamp was in New York. See: Dust Breeding (Man Ray 1920)

Such histrionically values were tied to such expressions to have found that the inner world and the outer-world were extremely connected. The observance not seen until it was understood that this psychology was topological interpreting itself from an inductive/deductive stance, as to the question, and with regard to the nature of the question.

Jung interpreted the practice of alchemy as the symbolic projection of psychic processes. In Psychology and Alchemy and Mysterium Coniunctionis (1955/56),
Jung’s empirical exploration and rediscovery of the objective psyche
led him to recognise that the basis of the alchemist’s endeavour was the
archetypal union of opposites by means of the integration of opposing
polarities: conscious and unconscious, reason and instinct, spiritual
and material, masculine and feminine. In the last summaries of his
insights on the subject, influenced in part by his collaboration with
the Nobel Prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli, the old Jung envisions
a great psycho-physical mystery to which the old alchemists gave the
name of unus mundus (one world). At the root of all being, so he
intimates, there is a state wherein physicality and spirituality meet.See:Reflections On Duchamp, Quantum Physics, And Mysterium Coniunctionis

This would place myself in the position of questioning this causal nature to have said that "will" was deeply connected to our psyche, to have not understood this deeper perception of a reality connection. Also, that such unification was deeper embedded in this practice of unification, so as to strive to form, as a example of an idea into expression.

This alchemy valuation of that work toward expression was based on a fundamental reality of joining the objectified world with the nature of the source. This forming process, the constructs, as a fundamental structure of the reality given.

Thursday, February 06, 2014

The termphase is sometimes used as a synonym for state of matter, but there can be several immiscible phases of the same state of matter. Also, the term phase
is sometimes used to refer to a set of equilibrium states demarcated in
terms of state variables such as pressure and temperature by a phase boundary on a phase diagram.
Because phase boundaries relate to changes in the organization of
matter, such as a change from liquid to solid or a more subtle change
from one crystal structure to another, this latter usage is similar to
the use of "phase" as a synonym for state of matter. However, the state
of matter and phase diagram usages are not commensurate with the formal
definition given above and the intended meaning must be determined in
part from the context in which the term is used.

One may find a correlate here with regard to how a question can be
properly placed. Lets say, as a result of a inductive/deductive
approach this puts one in a position of being truly like the
fisherman/woman, looking for fish.
However, one might look at that terminology, this might be an insightful
way of recognizing a fundamental feature of always gong to the "edge of
something?" Dropping a line into the deepest waters of.....?

To wit, it’s the concept of “being directed toward a goal.” In the good
old days of Aristotle, our best understanding of the world was
teleological from start to finish: acorns existed in order to grow into
mighty oak trees; heavy objects wanted to fall and light objects to
rise; human beings strove to fulfill their capacity as rational beings.
Not everyone agreed, including my buddy Lucretius, but at the time it
was a perfectly sensible view of the world.Reality, Pushed From Behind

So you may throw coins to the winds and ask the winds, "which way is
it going to blow today," yet, there is an underlying fundamental
feature associated with this question? It is an improved version of an
ole method, that seeks to be explained in the fundamental of approach
given today.

To Plato it may be this "One Thing," while to Aristotle, a hand sweeping as to indicate as to say it is all around you?

So given the truth of what a seeker will find, its correlate, may surprise you.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

http://www.revivewithenergy.com If you find that you are confused on whether you are sensing the voice of intuition or the voice of ego, skip to 5 min 40 secs to get clarity on which it is. That is....if you want to skip the peacock story at the beginning. Ha! Enjoy.

"The power of settings, the power of
priming, and the power of unconscious thinking, all of those are a major
change in psychology. I can't think of a bigger change in my lifetime.
You were asking what's exciting? That's exciting, to me."

Saturday, January 26, 2013

If the late character of our sources may incite us to doubt the authenticity of this tradition, there remains that, in its spirit, it is in no way out of character, as can be seen by reading or rereading what Plato says about the sciences fit for the formation of philosophers in book VII of the Republic, and especially about geometry at Republic, VII, 526c8-527c11. We should only keep in mind that, for Plato, geometry, as well as all other mathematical sciences, is not an end in itself, but only a prerequisite meant to test and develop the power of abstraction in the student, that is, his ability to go beyond the level of sensible experience which keeps us within the "visible" realm, that of the material world, all the way to the pure intelligible. And geometry, as can be seen through the experiment with the slave boy in the Meno (Meno, 80d1-86d2), can also make us discover the existence of truths (that of a theorem of geometry such as, in the case of the Meno, the one about doubling a square) that may be said to be "transcendant" in that they don't depend upon what we may think about them, but have to be accepted by any reasonable being, which should lead us into wondering whether such transcendant truths might not exist as well in other areas, such as ethics and matters relating to men's ultimate happiness, whether we may be able to "demonstrate" them or not.See: Frequently Asked Questions about Plato by Bernard SUZANNE

Academy was a suburb of Athens, named after the hero Academos or
Ecademos. The site was continuously inhabited from the prehistoric
period until the 6th century A.D. During the 6th century B.C., one of
the three famous Gymnasiums of Athens was founded here. Moreover, it is
recorded that Hippias, the son of Peisistratos, built a circuit wall,
and Cimon planted the area with trees which were destroyed by Sulla in
86 B.C. In 387 B.C. Plato founded his philosophical school, which became
very famous due to the Neoplatonists, and remained in use until A.D.
526, when it was finally closed down by emperor Justinian.

I relay some thoughts I have had with regard to an emergent process. I think it incorporates a view I have about the geometries hidden in nature that are designed toward expression of some of the historical understanding of this need to apply "fundamentals." These constructs are in ephemeral states of existence as if expressed as an idea. As idea, these become matter orientated views as "a method of approach."

Learning to identify the schematic usage of geometrical design as an
inherent basis of expression, was to understand that intent had this
basic design as a malleable feature in the nature of probabilistic
outcomes of experience?

In order for us to understand this "world view" as applied to the nature of the reality, it is assumed such fundamentals(all basic models) reveal some of the ways in which we will adopt the reality as expressed? We are active participants regardless aren't we, which might mean, there is still some room with which to form, "a more comprehensive view of the type of fundamentals" necessary for such a world view?

IN that sense, the basis of geometrical exploration, as a set of
possible outcomes, was to see schematically, that such usage was
necessary in understanding what Einstein was able to reveal once
adopting, Grossmann's realizations.

So of course historical analysis became an important function for me so as to look at the way in which such a historical school, might have used this method in order to attain the desired student. One who would face the continuing search for such fundamentals. Of course nothing said this is "set in stone." I am laughing right now. I will use such a structure so as to show you this method.

This was revealed to me in the statement of Hameroff and Penrose,
as a process in the cyclic expression of the universe. Using, geometrical design. Looking at emergence
as geometrical underlying process of the universe in expression. This
was to see an underlying format of constructive phases of experience.

So, not by the idea that such singularity as the nature of such
expression, but that by such intent, is an outcome toward the nature
of the geometry as dynamical views of as, K minus or plus, as metric
aversions of the dynamical process of out comes as the universe in such
expression?

While I cannot say for certain, these are the tendencies of Plato, in my thoughts it was for him, to seek and define reality in pursuance of foundation building blocks. Although too, it may not be true to today's world, it was sufficient then to describe reality as it contained the "ancientness of belief" about an astronomical processes that existed in nature.

While again it may not have been the best way, it reveals some deeper thinking about alchemist methods as they were adopted and transformed. This in Greek culture of the philosophers arose from one generation to the next. It then became a method by which one could internalize transformation.

Such model building was to build the ideological, by the discussing of these analogical methods to purify oneself of the grossness of nature embedded within the material world?

How much finer such methods then but to distillate the process for what begins as to it's beginning, exists as a some, " Prima Materia." This then became matter defined as the grossness of our experiences, could lead from any asymmetrical notion of this symmetry in the beginning?

Logic is the art of thinking; grammar, the art of inventing symbols
and combining them to express thought; and rhetoric, the art of
communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of
language to circumstance.Sister Miriam Joseph

The quadrivium
comprised the four subjects, or arts, taught in medieval universities
after the trivium. The word is Latin, meaning "the four ways" or "the
four roads". Together, the trivium and the quadrivium comprised the
seven liberal arts.[1] The quadrivium consisted of arithmetic, geometry,
music, and astronomy. These followed the preparatory work of the
trivium made up of grammar, logic (or dialectic, as it was called at the
times), and rhetoric. In turn, the quadrivium was considered
preparatory work for the serious study of philosophy and theology.

So while it may be fleeting that such a design may indicate the unification of the Trivium with the Quadrivium, such a completion was inherently significant not just for the presence of adaptation in any school.

Intuitive knowledge is free from partiality or dualism; it has
overcome the extremes of stressing subject or object. It is the vision
of a world-synthesis, the experience of cosmic consciousness where the
Infinite is realised not only conceptually but actually. (p233)Lama Anagarika Govinda, Creative Meditation and Multidimensional Consciousness, 1977

In my thoughts such a design was necessary as to impose a "model design" that indicated that such adaption in Plato's school amounted to something so solid? A method.

Such integration was necessary so as to realize that such a model built was to survive not only the objective world as a solid, but was also to realize that such unification could exist within ourselves. Bringing together this liberal arts as a measure of success was to delineate each subjective facet of experience so as to realize that one could transcend the material world, by such realizations which may have took one back to the beginning.

While in this sense artistic expressionism of Raphael's picture in the heading of this site, such a realization was to signify that such a pursuat was necessary and represented the coming together of Aristotle and Plato in the very centre of that world. It required us to become closely associated to the "beginning point" of what was allowed in terms of what is self evident as an inductive deductive process of unfolding.

This was our internal teacher/student dialogue that becomes necessary in order to proceed with dealing with the truths as they come to us in our realizations.

It was the uniqueness of the individual to which although each truth revealed it's successes with regard to that individual's development, in the larger scheme of things, it asked us to proceed with a method so as to deal with the science of life? To be inquisitive, but grounded in this teacher/student relationship so as to move forward and experience the world.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

"As to you, Life, I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths, No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before." "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman

Justified true belief.....does it matter what knowledge could exist in or about knowing that all knowledge exists out there somewhere and that you only have to access it? How do you do that?

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them. See:The Arch of Aristotelian Logic

What is self evident for you at the time......your accumulating experiencing with an inductive/deductive relationship at the time and what arises at that moment. It is a conclusion about and is what connects you to the answer?

It may not mean something to someone else but it is an opportune time for you then and now. You provide the "access point" when you ask the question. That's why you see the "?" mark.

Awareness of the development of the constitution as it applies to all human beings in a free and democratic society was thought to imply that the deduction of its principles should arise in what can be gained from it? What is arrived at and about what is being "self evident" too and for all people? So "the draft" in language was very important to one's constitution. Not just to a country, but in a person too. You see?

Knowledge then is about what you learn at this time.....could be the measure of the whole life...or could be a measure of the moment in time. This is of value to you. This is about that which is of measure when it is weighted against something of great meaning to you? How do you value that knowledge?

The diversity of one's knowledge can overlap many areas. Such trends in the sciences are seeing such benefits from cross pollination of the trades(aspect of the different areas of the sciences) as applied to those different sciences.

For example it is known that condense matter physics is of importance to theoretical approaches as a sign of the process toward identifying first principles? One may use string theory to push back perspective to the beginning time?

Can one use philosophy
to better manufacture the question? Sean Carroll thought it might be of
use to coordinate the developmental positions with regard to science
and philosophy to produce a clarity in developing the question?

When you see in many ways you see where many things connect?

Sir Isaac Newton was very proficient at doing this. You may not have liked his alchemy and thought it an ancient way, but he cared about the way he related to people.

He wanted to improve his condition so he knew that with his diversity of knowledge with and about the structure of the planet, that the structure of himself, lead to something very philosophical about his being. "To combine things" to make himself a better person.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Déjà vu (French pronunciation: [deʒa vy] (listen),
literally "already seen") is the experience of feeling sure that one
has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though
the exact circumstances of the prior encounter are uncertain and were
perhaps imagined. The term was coined by a Frenchpsychic researcher, Émile Boirac (1851–1917) in his book L'Avenir des sciences psychiques
("The Future of Psychic Sciences"), which expanded upon an essay he
wrote while an undergraduate. The experience of déjà vu is usually
accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of
"eeriness", "strangeness", "weirdness", or what Sigmund Freud calls "the uncanny".
The "previous" experience is most frequently attributed to a dream,
although in some cases there is a firm sense that the experience has
genuinely happened in the past.[1]

Scientific research

The psychologist Edward B. Titchener in his book A Textbook of Psychology
(1928), wrote that déjà vu is caused by a person getting a brief
glimpse of an object or situation prior to full conscious perception,
resulting in a false sense of familiarity.[2] The explanation that has mostly been accepted of déjà vu is not that it is an act of "precognition" or "prophecy", but rather that it is an anomaly of memory, giving the false impression that an experience is "being recalled".[3][4]
This explanation is supported by the fact that the sense of
"recollection" at the time is strong in most cases, but that the
circumstances of the "previous" experience (when, where, and how the
earlier experience occurred) are quite uncertain or believed to be
impossible. Likewise, as time passes, subjects can exhibit a strong
recollection of having the "unsettling" experience of déjà vu itself,
but little or no recollection of the specifics of the event(s) or
circumstance(s) they were "remembering" when they had the déjà vu
experience. In particular, this may result from an overlap between the
neurological systems responsible for short-term memory and those responsible for long-term memory
(events which are perceived as being in the past). The events would be
stored into memory before the conscious part of the brain even receives
the information and processes it.[citation needed]

Links with disorders

Early researchers tried to establish a link between déjà vu and serious psychopathology such as schizophrenia, anxiety, and dissociative identity disorder,
and failed to find the experience of some diagnostic value. There does
not seem to be a special association between déjà vu and schizophrenia
or other psychiatric conditions.[5] The strongest pathological association of déjà vu is with temporal lobe epilepsy.[6][7] This correlation has led some researchers to speculate that the experience of déjà vu is possibly a neurological anomaly related to improper electrical discharge in the brain. As most people suffer a mild (i.e. non-pathological) epileptic episode regularly (e.g. a hypnagogic jerk,
the sudden "jolt" that frequently, but not always, occurs just prior to
falling asleep) it is conjectured that a similar (mild) neurological
aberration occurs in the experience of déjà vu, resulting in an
erroneous sensation of memory.

Pharmacology

Certain drugs increase the chances of déjà vu occurring in the user.
Some pharmaceutical drugs, when taken together, have also been
implicated in the cause of déjà vu. Taiminen and Jääskeläinen (2001)[8]
reported the case of an otherwise healthy male who started experiencing
intense and recurrent sensations of déjà vu upon taking the drugs amantadine and phenylpropanolamine
together to relieve flu symptoms. He found the experience so
interesting that he completed the full course of his treatment and
reported it to the psychologists to write up as a case study. Due to the
dopaminergic
action of the drugs and previous findings from electrode stimulation of
the brain (e.g. Bancaud, Brunet-Bourgin, Chauvel, & Halgren, 1994),[9]
Taiminen and Jääskeläinen speculate that déjà vu occurs as a result of
hyperdopaminergic action in the mesial temporal areas of the brain.

Memory-based explanations

The similarity between a déjà-vu-eliciting stimulus and an existing, but different, memory trace may lead to the sensation.[5][10]
Thus, encountering something which evokes the implicit associations of
an experience or sensation that cannot be remembered may lead to déjà
vu. In an effort to experimentally reproduce the sensation, Banister and
Zangwill (1941)[11][12] used hypnosis
to give participants posthypnotic amnesia for material they had already
seen. When this was later re-encountered, the restricted activation
caused thereafter by the posthypnotic amnesia resulted in three of the
10 participants reporting what the authors termed "paramnesias".
Memory-based explanations may lead to the development of a number of
non-invasive experimental methods by which a long sought-after analogue
of déjà vu can be reliably produced that would allow it to be tested
under well-controlled experimental conditions. Cleary[10]
suggests that déjà vu may be a form of familiarity-based recognition
(recognition that is based on a feeling of familiarity with a situation)
and that laboratory methods of probing familiarity-based recognition
hold promise for probing déjà vu in laboratory settings. Another
possible explanation for the phenomenon of déjà vu is the occurrence of "cryptomnesia",
which is where information learned is forgotten but nevertheless stored
in the brain, and similar occurrences invoke the contained knowledge,
leading to a feeling of familiarity because of the situation, event or
emotional/vocal content, known as "déjà vu".

Parapsychology

Some parapsychologists have advocated some unorthodox interpretations of déjà vu. Ian Stevenson and a minority of other researchers have written that some cases of déjà vu might be explained on the basis of reincarnation.[13][14]Anthony Peake has written that déjà vu experiences occur as people are living their lives not for the first time but at least the second.[15]

Related phenomena

Jamais vu

Jamais vu (from French, meaning "never seen") is a term in psychology
which is used to describe any familiar situation which is not
recognized by the observer.
Often described as the opposite of déjà vu, jamais vu involves a
sense of eeriness and the observer's impression of seeing the situation
for the first time, despite rationally knowing that he or she has been
in the situation before. Jamais vu is more commonly explained as when a
person momentarily does not recognize a word, person, or place that they
already know. Jamais vu is sometimes associated with certain types of aphasia, amnesia, and epilepsy.
Theoretically, as seen below, a jamais vu feeling in a sufferer of a delirious disorder or intoxication could result in a delirious explanation of it, such as in the Capgras delusion, in which the patient takes a person known by him or her for a false double or impostor. If the impostor is himself, the clinical setting would be the same as the one described as depersonalisation, hence jamais vus of oneself or of the very "reality of reality", are termed depersonalisation (or surreality) feelings.Times Online reports (see semantic satiation):

Chris Moulin, of the University of Leeds,
asked 95 volunteers to write out "door" 30 times in 60 seconds. At the
International Conference on Memory in Sydney last week he reported that
68 percent of the volunteers showed symptoms of jamais vu, such as
beginning to doubt that "door" was a real word. Dr. Moulin believes that
a similar brain fatigue underlies a phenomenon observed in some
schizophrenia patients: that a familiar person has been replaced by an
impostor. Dr. Moulin suggests they could be suffering from chronic
jamais vu.[16]

Presque vu (Tip of the tongue)

Déjà vu is similar to, but distinct from, the phenomenon called tip of the tongue,
a situation when someone cannot recall a familiar word or name, but
with effort one eventually recalls the elusive memory. In contrast, déjà
vu is a feeling that the present situation has occurred before, but the
details are elusive because the situation never happened before.
Presque vu (from French, meaning "almost seen") is the sensation of being on the brink of an epiphany.
Often very disorienting and distracting, presque vu rarely leads to an
actual breakthrough. Frequently, one experiencing presque vu will say
that they have something "on the tip of my tongue".

Déjà entendu

Déjà entendu, (literally "already heard") is the experience of
feeling sure that one has already heard something, even though the
exact details are uncertain and were perhaps imagined.[17][18]

Reja vu

The feeling something that has happened or is happening will happen
again, possibly in the near future, possibly in the distant future.

In popular culture

Film

Déjà vu provides a plot point in The Matrix, a 1999 science fiction-action film written and directed by Larry and Andy Wachowski. The protagonist, Neo,
glances at a black cat and comments that he has just experienced déjà
vu. Those with a knowledge of 'The Matrix' and its internal workings
state that déjà vu means something within the Matrix was altered from
its prior state and is referred to as a "glitch".
The 2006 science fiction film Déjà Vu
revolves around a US federal law enforcement officer using an
instrument called Snowhite to view the past 4 and a half days of
anywhere in the world (limited radius as permissible by the program) in
order to solve a murder and a terrorist bomb attack on a ferry that was
being boarded by about 500 citizens and military members.

Television

Déjà Vu was the third episode of the second season of Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British comedy program. Michael Palin plays a television host with the problem.[19]
The concept is explored in the episode 119 of Garfield and Friends in the Orson's Farm segment.
The final episode of season 1 of Charmed, called "Déjà Vu All Over Again" sees Phoebe Halliwell reliving the same day over and over again at the hands of a demon named Tempus.[20]
Déjà Vu is also a recurring plot element on Fringe.
In the Season One episode, "The Road Not Taken", Olivia described the
experience of déjà vu to Walter after she briefly experienced an
alternate reality as the result of being a Cortexiphan subject. In the
Season Two episode "White Tulip", Olivia experiences déjà vu while
investigating the apartment of a time traveler who reset the timeline.
Déjà Vu is also a plot element in the "Mystery Episode" of the
television series Supernatural where Sam Winchester wakes up in the same
day as a result of being trapped in a time loop.

First
came the heterodyne. The principle of "beats" or difference tones
between simultaneous audio pitches was well known since antiquity, but
Reginald Fessenden in 1901 was the first to apply the principle to radio
transmissions [3]. Originally both radio frequencies were to be
transmitted, received with two antennas, and combined in a detector.
Later a local oscillator was substituted for one of the
transmitter-receiver combinations and the heterodyne as we know it was
born. Fessenden himself coined the term, from the Greek heteros (other)
and dynamis (force).Who Invented the Superheterodyne?